I've avoided the Schiavo threads, but I want to understand something.

[rockymountaindem]

As I understand it, this case is not about whether or not Terri Schiavo *could* or *should* be maintained on the feeding tube. It is over whether or not she *wanted* to be, right? So when people try to argue that Michael Schiavo is "trying to kill Terri" and that "her parents could/want to take care of her", they are missing the point, aren't they? Yes, it would be easy enough to just turn care over to her parents, but if she didn't want that then that wouldn't be fair to her.

So to me this is not a case of bioethics that the fundamentalists seem to think it is. It is a case to determine whether or not Terri made statements while she was still of sound mind and body indicating that she would not wish to be maintained in a vegetative state. Thus, it becomes and issue of personal choice, not life vs. murder. If she did indeed voice her wishes that she didn't want to live like this at a time when such a situation was hypothetical, then her wishes should be honored. Multiple courts and judges have ruled that there is enough evidence to conclude that this is the case.

So then all these protesters aren't really "standing up for life", but are trying to impose their will on Terri, who decided for herself before her injury that she wouldn't want to live like this.

Am I wrong about any of this? I'm not as well educated on this case as many of you. Please let me know if I'm off track. I'll be back in a bit to check on the responses.